Truth &Consequences:The Mood Of This Blog

We’ve traveled along far enough to reexamine our intent,content and pervading mood.Some have been pleased by our content but found fault with the length of the commentary.Others find things just right.Some find the recounting of so much wrong disheartening.All we can do is to reaffirm our intent to create dialogue particularly across generational lines,hoping to engage those whose familiarity with digital reality is greater than ours.We have lived through and experienced a lot;we have seen the power of instant communication,social media and encryption.We think we know some of what works and what doesn’t and some of why.We wish to share.
A few days ago the results of a 13 month investigation,Chicago’s attorney general issued a first degree murder indictment against an officer Van Dyke(with a history of using excessive force)who arrived last on a scene of confrontation between armed officers with drawn guns and a PCP high 17 year old with a small knife.Van Dyke poured 16 9 mm. slugs from his Glock into the youth and was reloading when told by other police to desist.The 17 year old was turning away(despite police claims)when murdered.Friday in Colorado Springs 3 people were killed and 9 wounded( including an armed veteran policeman)in a murder/hostage assault on a Colorado abortion clinic run by Planned Parenthood and previously identified by the courts as in danger of attack.While the attacker has wild,staring eyes and a history of mental illness,he possessed an automatic long gun and operated in a state which targets abortion.
It would appear that differences matter,race,gender,sexual preference etc.Despite some statements appearing on this blog, race does matter both historically and in present times.Apparently the risk of the use of tax dollars to aid individuals who are damaged by their presence in discriminated against groups is enough to frighten some of us.The denial of tax dollars for education,health,mortgage assistance,GI bill of rights,FHA assistance etc. is not seen as significant.Only individuals are guaranteed constitutional rights by this order of
thinking.Ergo,individuals in discriminated against groups are no longer individuals.The ability to see most of the domestic issues as having worldwide relevance is important.Those who would have a rape survivor bear her rapist’s child need to be considered in the same light as the Taliban who whip and cattle prod women and kill women who wish education.Despite those who would pull up the ladder of success after themselves and behind a wall,the dialogue will continue!
I recommend this month’s(November 2015)Smithsonian article by Edward Ball titled”Slavery’s Trail of Tears”-retrieving America’s forgotten migration-the journey of one million African-Americans from the Tobacco south to the Cotton south.Words from the thousand mile monstrosity, like cottle and slavepen are rediscovered.This march dwarfs the relocations of native Americans in magnitude if not in moral turpitude

“Letter to to my Son”by Ta Nehisi Coates in September 2015’s Atlantic is also recommended for those who need to counter the accusation of the use of emotionalism by, in their definition,favored groups in violation of logic.

Post navigation

7 Comments

On the 26th of November I wrote, “… race is important to everyone – but only to the degree that populations allow themselves to conjure reasons to believe that it is important. The greater the number of people who realize that race does not have to be important, the sooner the immense waste and pain linked to these fantasy beliefs will abate.”
Daedal2207 will have no problem supporting the thesis that man can be hideously cruel and unfair to his fellow man. The waste and pain linked to beliefs that are embraced not with substance but by emotion-based “satisfactions” provide for us an immense number of horror stories. I think that we can understand that slavery and other (destructive) emotional rewards linked to dominance have been with humanity long before they were linked to race. Most fundamentally it has to do with an imaginative ability to create an “us” and a “them”. Cultural divides of all kinds have provided the license which allows man with clear conscience to treat other humans as property. To the degree we are able to end divisions we can end the sense that we have a right to treat others cruelly. Exaggerated “diversity” heightens the sense of differences between “us” and “them”. It is an act of unity when we choose to define ourselves as individuals first (not groups) who share the goal of equal treatment under the law. This action tends to subdue our (real or imagined) differences.
Given the rewards that accrue from a constitutional focus on individual liberty, and given man’s emotionally complex make-up, some racially-based (us vs them) horror stories will always exist. But let’s not accelerate their presence by exaggerating “diversity” over that of unity (E Pluribus Unum).

I am working with the premise that an observer from another planet, WHO IS UNAWARE OF OUR SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS, would consider the only reason to divide us into what WE CALL “races” is a varying susceptibility to some diseases. Therefore, if true, all the various kinds and degrees of importance that we FEEL based on the distinctions we describe as race (other than this disease factor) must be subjective, that is – of human invention. As religious belief is immensely important (often problematic) not only for those who share the belief, but for those who must live in proximity to those who have the belief, so too is the belief that race is important. I am not denying problems. Religions impact powerfully. In fact, it is the horrendous suffering caused by our religious-like fantasies about the importance of race that moves me to attempt the presentation of a possible cure. That involves our choosing a path with a diminished focus on differences and a greater focus on sameness – E Pluribus Unum.

We await the denial of the veracity of these references as representing a left bias. One of the characteristics of the far right is the capacity to create their own history by creating their own facts.

Daedal2207 presents an assumption that the “far-right” is more prone (than the political left?) to “create their own facts”. I would like to see some specifics. Please help us understand by defining “far right”, the degree to which they have power, and then give us some examples.

Your instructions bring up the association of the conductor of Haydn’s “Farewell Symphony” after the last player has left the stage;by the way a collective bargaining victory for the musicians.The blog is full of the examples you request(neocoms,birchers,evangelicals,non climate change responsibility believers etc.)The degree to which they have power is proportional to the degree that they can dissuade those who think from voting,(ballot box blocking)and from avoiding the promise of differential trickle down benefit from group membership rather than collectively bargaining for maximum benefit for most from a capitalistic system that can produce and distribute enormous wealth differently from the present pattern of enormous entitlement through tax preference,stock market preference,and inheritance preference.Reread the blog if necessary.

Is the “far-right” more prone (than the political left?) to “create their own facts”? Daedal2207 has not answered that question. He has not defined the side(s) against which the “far right” is being compared. The fact that a number of groups have been mentioned in the blog does not prove that they are dishonest relative to the objective realities. Even if it is true that these groups are prone to factual distortion, we do not see an attempt by Daedal2207 to examine the degree to which (the left?) may be even greater (or lesser) in its willingness to manipulate and deceive. “You can keep your doctor, period!” becomes a rather significant distortion of fact given that it came directly from the President of the United States.
Daedal2207’s belief that there is an “enormous entitlement through tax preference, stock market preference, and inheritance preference” may be true. If “entitlement” means “special favors” it is destructive of “equal rights” for those who must be forced to cater in some form to those who are made special by entitlement. The correction would involve the elimination of special favors. If every individual citizen no matter all sizes, sexes, or colors, is to have equal rights under the law, group affiliation has no bearing.